A belated challenge to a Section 3 notification is untenable after Section 6 declaration and concluded proceedings.

The 25 petitioners, claiming to be residents of Village Rajpardi, Taluka Jhagadia, District Bharuch—a Scheduled Area—challenged the notification dated 28 June 2022 issued under Section 3 of the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000 (“Gujarat Pipeline Act”).

The notification proposed acquisition of the right of user in their lands for the Aamboli–Rajpipla Gas Pipeline Project, Section Vanthevav–Bhadam.

The petitioners alleged that the acquisition proceedings violated the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (“PESA Act”) and the Gujarat Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Rules, 2017, particularly because the concerned Gram Sabhas or Gram Panchayats had not been consulted.

The petition was filed approximately four years after the Section 3 notification. During the hearing, Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. produced the subsequent declaration dated 29 April 2023 issued under Section 6(4) of the Gujarat Pipeline Act.

The respondents also stated that the pipeline had already been laid and that notices dated 20 December 2025 were issued to landowners for verification of ownership and disbursement of compensation.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the Section 3 notification dated 28 June 2022 on the ground that the mandatory consultation and participation requirements under the PESA Act and Gujarat PESA Rules had not been complied with.

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable after an unexplained delay of approximately four years, particularly when a declaration under Section 6 had subsequently been issued and the acquisition process had substantially concluded.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings when the petition did not disclose the subsequent Section 6 declaration and the notices issued for determination and payment of compensation.

The Court considered Section 4 of the PESA Act, 1996, especially Section 4(i), which requires consultation with the Gram Sabha or Panchayats at the appropriate level before acquisition of land in Scheduled Areas for development projects and before rehabilitation or resettlement.

Rules 23 and 24 of the Gujarat PESA Rules, 2017 were also applied: Rule 23 requires the Gram Sabha to exercise functions relating to land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, while Rule 24 requires rehabilitation details to be placed before the Gram Sabha and recorded in its minutes.

Under Sections 3 and 6 of the Gujarat Pipeline Act, the State may propose and subsequently declare acquisition of the right of user in land; upon publication of the Section 6 declaration, the right of user vests absolutely in the State Government free from encumbrances.

Section 9 restricts construction, excavation and planting of trees over the affected land but preserves the owner’s or occupier’s existing use, and Section 10 provides for compensation, with a remedy before the Collector for redetermination of disputed compensation.

The Court also applied the principles of delay and laches, waiver, and the requirement that a writ petitioner make full and candid disclosure of material facts.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ reliance on PESA and the Gujarat PESA Rules raised a potential requirement of Gram Sabha consultation in acquisition matters.

However, the Court held that the challenge could not be entertained because it was brought nearly four years after the Section 3 notification and did not address the subsequent Section 6 declaration dated 29 April 2023, by which the right of user had vested in the State.

The acquisition process had substantially progressed, the pipeline had reportedly been laid, and the 2025 notices showed that the authorities were proceeding with compensation rather than initiating a fresh acquisition process.

The Court further found that the petitioners had not disclosed these material developments and had approached the Court only after receiving notices concerning compensation.

In these circumstances, the delayed and incomplete challenge to the initial proposal notification was held to be untenable.

The Special Civil Application was accordingly disposed of without granting the requested relief and without any order as to costs.